What is the problem with voluntaryism ?

Submitted by Silver_ in Anarchism

Hello,

Consider the following premises :

People don't want to be killed, especially when they did nothing wrong. People also don't want to be hurt, especially when they did nothing wrong.

Therefore violence should be minimized as much as possible.

If you are in a desert have a bottle of water & a mugger attacks you & steal the water, they will have to compensate you (sooner or later), regardless of their circumstances.

If some people break your front door steal some food & run away, they will have to compensate you (sooner or later), regardless of their circumstances.

You are not forced to make a compensation claim.

Do you agree ?

2nd

You think that some people (companies) have illegitimate property claims, because It was financed with stolen money/items/scams...etc . Maybe & we'll have to see on a case by case basis, It's not imcompatible with voluntaryism.

What's the problem with voluntaryism and why is it so bad ?

7

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

Isn't that just code for "voluntary" capitalism? Capitalism isn't voluntary. We don't volunteer our labor to our bosses, it's stolen from us by denying us food, shelter and freedom of movement if we don't agree to work. Capitalism is a totalitarian system that forces everyone to submit to it or starve.

w/Anarcho_Capitalism

11

manc wrote

We don't volunteer our labor to our bosses, it's stolen from us

f you don't like it you can voluntarily get on your voluntary bike while pulling up your voluntary bootstraps, serf!

/u/Silver_ , anarchism is anticapitalist.

7

Silver_ OP wrote

Don't work for a boss (like I'm doing), If you don't like it -> nothing incompatible with voluntaryism

−7

ziq wrote

This is your brain on capitalism.

11

bloodrose wrote

Serious question: how are you eating and where are you living? I assume you still have to make money. If you have to make money in order to eat and live, you are not free to not participate.

4

Silver_ OP wrote (edited )

2 things : You didn't inherit anything from your parents ? No land, nothing ? Me too, I had to leave early & besides a computer I didn't have anything. Fortunately, I will soon buy a real plot of lands & I'll be good :)

Here are some ways to earn money without wage labor :

Freelancing

Affiliate marketing

Selling goods/services

Being a middle-man

−2

bloodrose wrote

You didn't inherit anything from your parents ? No land, nothing ?

Just bad coping mechanisms.

Here are some ways to earn money without wage labor :

I didn't actually ask for a list of alternative ways to sell my labor. I asked how you eat and live without selling your labor. Clearly, you do sell your labor. My broader point was that prior to capitalism, food grew wild. One could go forage plants and fish and hunt for food. However, now you must pay someone to be allowed to eat. So you must earn a wage. You have no way out of earning a wage. Under voluntaryism, I don't see this as being any different. All of the things you mentioned require one to labor in ways that are not just picking an apple off of a tree. Therefore, not voluntary. Compulsary.

3

Silver_ OP wrote

Your parents are "responsible" to give you a good "starter pack" imo. If they didn't give you land, the fault is on them.

Secondly, you can still forage plants/fish/hunt on public & private land (If you're invited), but I won't go into the details .

Yes, It's subpar compared to the hunter/gatherer days, but what r you expecting ? We're growing as a species...

& Without government you could own all the "public" land, that the government prevents you from owning, so yea this will be a lot different.

−2

bloodrose wrote

our parents are "responsible" to give you a good "starter pack" imo. If they didn't give you land, the fault is on them.

So what is my recourse?

Secondly, you can still forage plants/fish/hunt on public & private land (If you're invited), but I won't go into the details .

Not without paying. And that's my point. All land is fucking owned by someone. You must pay someone. Therefore, you must make a wage.

Yes, It's subpar compared to the hunter/gatherer days, but what r you expecting

To not have to pay for shit that grows free because someone decided they fucking owned it.

We're growing as a species...

You say growing, I say failing. Toh-may-to, Toh-mah-to.

Without government you could own all the "public" land, that the government prevents you from owning, so yea this will be a lot different.

You're extrapolating and making extra arguments to my initial question of how can you eat and have somewhere to live without a wage under a system that still has wages.

4

TRANSPHOBESGETTHEWALL wrote

Just admit to us you're a bootlicker who wants to worship authority but are too afraid of admitting to being a snowflake.

1

manc wrote

TIL freelancing isn't labouring for a wage.

What you're describing has nothing to do with abolishing hierarchies (anarchism). It is capitalism, nothing more, and calling it something else doesn't make it less hierarchical or less destructive.

1

Silver_ OP wrote

TIL freelancing isn't labouring for a wage.

Well, both parties are a lot more accountable, very often It is short/medium term projects, so...

Either I'm a lucky bastard or smth, cuz I never had problems & everything worked as intended

What you're describing has nothing to do with abolishing hierarchies (anarchism). It is capitalism, nothing more, and calling it something else doesn't make it less hierarchical or less destructive.

You can abolish hierarchies in your ancom commune, but don't abolish it in other communes, who don't want it, Is it good ?

−1

manc wrote

Either I'm a lucky bastard or smth

Ah the old "I'm alright Jack" argument. Not heard that one for a while. I'm sure the midwives in the favelas will sleep easier tonight knowing that capitalism is working great for at least one bootlicker person.

ancom

Nope. We're anarchists here, not communists. Anarchism is against hierarchy. The clue is in the title.

3

SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

People don't want to be killed, especially when they did nothing wrong. People also don't want to be hurt, especially when they did nothing wrong.

Therefore violence should be minimized as much as possible.

Okay.

If you are in a desert have a bottle of water & a mugger attacks you & steal the water, they will have to compensate you (sooner or later), regardless of their circumstances.

If some people break your front door steal some food & run away, they will have to compensate you (sooner or later), regardless of their circumstances.

They have to compensate you? Sooner or later? What stops this from being a meaningless platitude exactly? If I steal something, it's mine; that's what stealing is. Something has to enforce this principal or it's just a useless moral obligation. And if some entity is enforcing a principal, it's essentially law enforcement; which I, as an anarchist, am opposed to.

EDIT: Voluntaryism relies on the premise that everyone will just go along with these compensation claims, which just won't happen; people can be anywhere from nice to mean. So Voluntaryism requires incentive in order to encourage the following of its principals. Said incentive can be threatening loss in one's quality of life (imprisonment, punishment, death, slavery) or reward-based. These incentives require some form of government to manage these incentives and mediate between compensation claims. Said government can be based publicly, privately, or mixed. The result would be the same: a society with that isn't too different from our own. It's just a change in who has power and how much they have. It avails the disadvantaged nothing. It avails Anarchists nothing. It avails anyone that hates the status quo nothing. That's why it's bad.

9

Silver_ OP wrote

What stops this from being a meaningless platitude exactly?

Ostracism, loss of honor & unfortunately maybe some people will be willing to be vigilantes to have a "revenge"

We simply ask the bad guy If he is willing to compensate. If he do, we'll negociate. If he doesn't want to come in (private) "court" (discussing with me), I will say it to the "public" & he will be shamed from the community

−1

SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

Ostracism, loss of honor & unfortunately maybe some people will be willing to be vigilantes to have a "revenge"

I can get behind the idea that actions that harm others can have consequences and that helping others can be rewarding. That's fine, and usually a commonality between leftist anarchists and post-left anarchists, but that isn't really enough.

Asking "the bad guy" if he is willing to compensate relies on the idea that you've seen said "bad guy", that you are aware of where they are, and that they'll even entertain the idea of compensating you. People steal for a reason: If I went through the trouble of breaking into your house and stealing food from you, odds are it's because I'm hungry and desperate; meaning that compensation would be unlikely.

6

Silver_ OP wrote

We can send an email, letter or any other means to contact the bad guy.

If I went through the trouble of breaking into your house and stealing food from you, odds are it's because I'm hungry and desperate; meaning that compensation would be unlikely.

You can always compensate (or you will always be able to compensate). Whether the compensation is a simple task or a monetary compensation will have to be decided. Whether you will have to compensate when you have the means or later will have to be decided

0

SomeIconoclast wrote

We can send an email, letter or any other means to contact the bad guy.

That's naive. Where are you going to find this info? Does everyone have to have their contact info openly displayed under voluntaryist society?

Whether the compensation is a simple task

I'm not too keen on the idea of bringing indentured servitude back. Before you say anything about how that option isn't how everyone who can't afford to compensate will have to pay someone back, consider this: Why the fuck would any anarchist even consider the fact that it's on the table acceptable? Enslaving someone for stealing canned spam or whatever the fuck? That doesn't sound anarchist at all.

4

Silver_ OP wrote

2 things :

How will justice work in an ancom system ?

  1. Is voluntary work slavery (even when both parties 100% agreed to it & are happy with it ?)

Is it slavery If I ask my father/brother/sister/cousin/neighbor...etc to help me clean my land in exchange of money ?

Are they better off, If they do it for free or for 0.01$/hour ?

2

SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

How will justice work in an ancom system ?

Pfft. I wouldn't know. I'm not an ancom.

Is voluntary work slavery (even when both parties 100% agreed to it & are happy with it?) Is it slavery If I ask my father/brother/sister/cousin/neighbor...etc to help me clean my land in exchange of money ? Are they better off, If they do it for free or for 0.01$/hour ?

You must be confused. When I said that I wasn't into bringing indentured servitude back, I was referring to the fact that you seem to think that having someone perform work in compensation for stealing food was somehow acceptable. And that this system would somehow be compatible with anarchism. We have a fucking sub that deals in shoplifting (stealing), there's no way that shit would fly with anyone here.

Is it slavery If I ask my father/brother/sister/cousin/neighbor...etc to help me clean my land in exchange of money? Are they better off, If they do it for free or for 0.01$/hour ?

It isn't slavery if you ask a family member to help you with work, no. You are, however, a pretty lousy person to pay your own family members, friends, and/or neighbors a sweatshop rate in exchange for labor. You might as well just get rid of any pretense of payment and just ask them to do it as a personal favor. That's pretty much what mutual aid is. It is slavery if it's punishment for theft; I doubt you're paying the "bad guy" any money since they're compensating you.

5

Silver_ OP wrote (edited )

Pfft. I wouldn't know. I'm not an ancom.

Then what is your "(anti)political" ideology, then ? What are the rules in your ideal (stateless?) society

I was referring to the fact that you seem to think that having someone perform work in compensation for stealing food was somehow acceptable.

Why is it unacceptable, I don't understand (especially If both parties agreed that It is an ok compensation)

Edit: I don't mind /f/shoplifting because I like "free speech" (the concept, not the legal "right" given by the state) . I find it pretty good when controversial topics are on internet.

2

SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

Then what is your "(anti)political" ideology, then ? What are the rules in your ideal (stateless?) society

Ideology is useless. I don't indulge myself in dreaming up imaginary societies unless I'm writing fiction. If I had one in mind, it wouldn't have rules.

Why is it unacceptable, I don't understand (especially If both parties agreed that It is an ok compensation)

Are you at all aware of how easy it would be to get someone to agree with me if I used force, deception, and/or intimidation? If you stole from me and I somehow found you and got you to agree to compensating me? I'll give an example: I get a couple of guys to make sure you won't leave until you accept my terms (which, given the nature of this refutation, would be you working for me for however long I deem fit). You find the idea of working for me for 2 years unacceptable; I, in turn, mark up your punishment to 5 years and refuse to budge. Every attempt you make to talk me down leads to the price going up. You can't leave because my friends are blocking the way AND because if you do, you'd be leaving my negotiation; meaning you surrender your reputation and you risk having vigilantes stomping you out. If I get you to agree to serving me under those conditions, it's voluntary, but you were given an ultimatum, not a choice.

2

Silver_ OP wrote

I get a couple of guys to make sure you won't leave until you accept my terms

Then act like If you were accepting the terms. Once you're outside you'll explain your situation to the community/world & this contract will be deemed invalid (against your will/you were cornered) .

you'd be leaving my negotiation

You can always negociate/renegociate later. Get out of this place, exit this "danger zone", go to safety.

you risk having vigilantes stomping you out

I hope that vigilantes are a minor part of society, but that's an unfortunate fact that may happen from time to time ESPECIALLY, WHEN YOU REFUSE COMPENSATING PEOPLE .

If I get you to agree to serving me under those conditions, it's voluntary

It's not voluntary, because you couldn't leave If you didn't say yes

2

SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

Then act like If you were accepting the terms. Once you're outside you'll explain your situation to the community/world & this contract will be deemed invalid (against your will/you were cornered).

Naive. In this situation, the thief wouldn't believed; it's my word as the victim of theft over theirs as the thief. No one trusts "criminals" in this society, why would yours be any different? If anyone can break a contract later out of regret, then the contract compensation idea is worthless.

You can always negociate/renegociate later. Get out of this place, exit this "danger zone", go to safety.

No. You can't. That's why I brought the guys here; to make sure you couldn't leave.

I hope that vigilantes are a minor part of society, but that's an unfortunate fact that may happen from time to time ESPECIALLY, WHEN YOU REFUSE COMPENSATING PEOPLE.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that if you leave without accepting my terms, I could easily take advantage of the fact that vigilantes exist and could have them take care of you. It's the word of a thief against the word of the victim.

It's not voluntary, because you couldn't leave If you didn't say yes

It doesn't really matter. Under a voluntarist society, all contracts could only be nullified by the person being compensated; otherwise anyone could break free of the contract under any circumstance, so long as they aren't happy anymore. Which would be a freer system, but would render the point of compensation contracts useless. Which means no one has to compensate anyone.

2

Silver_ OP wrote

Naive. In this situation, the thief wouldn't believed

I don't see why ? What does he gain by lying ? Nothing.

If anyone can break a contract later out of regret, then the contract compensation idea is worthless.

No, you are "free" to stop compensating, in the same way that you are "free" to not compensate. But It will have consequences...

Which means no one has to compensate anyone.

No one has a technical obligation to not rape, murder, rob and do other bad things like that, It will have consequences, however...

1

SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

I don't see why ? What does he gain by lying ? Nothing.

The thief has a lot to gain, whether they're lying or not. If they're believed, they get out of having to compensate someone. Meaning they gained whatever they stole and faced no consequence for it.

No, you are "free" to stop compensating, in the same way that you are "free" to not compensate. But It will have consequences...

The fact that you put quotation marks around the word "free" proves a lot about voluntaryism and why anarchists consider it bad. Also, it was you who said:

If you are in a desert have a bottle of water & a mugger attacks you & steal the water, they will have to compensate you (sooner or later), regardless of their circumstances. If some people break your front door steal some food & run away, they will have to compensate you (sooner or later), regardless of their circumstances."

Keywords here being: have to. If I have to do something, it isn't autonomous; something is making me do it. Which is what anarchism opposes.

No one has a technical obligation to not rape, murder, rob and do other bad things like that, It will have consequences, however...

No one is advocating for a system that condones rape, murder, or robbery. You're advocating for (or at least defending) a society that uses a compensation-based justice system that runs on contracts formed on an individual basis. You've continued to defend this system even when I've pointed out that it doesn't fucking matter whether or not slave contracts are "voluntary" or not, because coercion and deception exist.To the anarchist focused forum of a website run and moderated by anarchists and socialists. I'm telling you that that system is either ripe for abuse or ineffective. Voluntaryism either requires that contracts cannot be nullified after an agreement is reached, in which case, it would thoroughly abused OR the contracts can be nullified by the person compensating, in which case, anyone can nullify the contract; so the contracts are essentially just worthless moral obligations that can be ignored with impunity. As I've stated in my first post.

2

Silver_ OP wrote (edited )

If they're believed, they get out of having to compensate someone.

No, they will just "win" the "right" to renogociate the contract, nothing to gain, there.

The fact that you put quotation marks around the word "free" proves a lot about voluntaryism and why anarchists consider it bad.

Yeah, It's sad that criminals (who don't want to compensate their crimes/assume the consequences) are oppressed, but victims are living in heaven.

OR the contracts can be nullified by the person compensating, in which case, anyone can nullify the contract; so the contracts are essentially just worthless moral obligations that can be ignored with impunity

Yeah, but don't be surprised when you're ostracized or If you meet an angry vigilante "hero".

1

SomeIconoclast wrote

No, they will just "win" the "right" to renogociate the contract, nothing to gain, there.

Why the fuck would anyone want to renegotiate with someone who tried to enslave them? Why are you defending such a shitty framework for a justice system? Why the fuck does it feel like this conversation is going in circles?

Yeah, It's sad that criminals are oppressed, but victims are living in heaven.

I'm, like, 90% certain that this is sarcastic, but I'm really not sure with you. I'll just assume it is and move on.

Yeah, but don't be surprised when you're ostracized or If you meet an angry vigilante "hero".

Oh, fuck, more talk of ostracization and vigilantes. That's why this conversation is going in circles, you keep repeating the same shit without substance. Why would I be ostracized for not doing something that's optional and easily ignored? Do you think there's some stigma against not doing jury duty?

2

Silver_ OP wrote

Why the fuck would anyone want to renegotiate with someone who tried to enslave them? Why are you defending such a shitty framework for a justice system?

They want to gain back their reputation to not be ostracized from people property.

Why would I be ostracized for not doing something that's optional and easily ignored?

Because I don't want thieves near my property, therefore I won't allow you to enter in my property. Maybe, I will be the only one doing this, who knows, but I am pretty convinced that other voluntaryists will think the same.

Do you think there's some stigma against not doing jury duty?

Is there stigma to smash someone's car and not pay for the damage ? Oh wait...

1

SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

They want to gain back their reputation to not be ostracized from people property.

"People will want to be enslaved so that others will not think badly of them." This is fucking gold, lmao.

Because I don't want thieves near my property, therefore I won't allow you to enter in my property. Maybe, I will be the only one doing this, who knows, but I am pretty convinced that other voluntaryists will think the same.

It doesn't matter if you want thieves near your property. No one likes having their shit stolen. It really doesn't matter if you don't "allow" them into your property. What? You gonna stay in your house for the rest of your life, because you're afraid that someone will steal from you? Come the fuck on.

Is there stigma to smash someone's car and not pay for the damage ? Oh wait...

"Smashing a car and ignoring optional contracts for negotiation are the same thing." How do you miss the point this fucking often?

2

Silver_ OP wrote (edited )

You gonna stay in your house for the rest of your life, because you're afraid that someone will steal from you

Or security cameras or pay guards to keep my home safe or better security doors...etc

"Smashing a car and ignoring optional contracts for negotiation are the same thing." How do you miss the point this fucking often?

My point was : you smashed the car, the owner want to negociate (so that we'll know how to compensate him/how much). You don't want to. You don't compensate.

Do you really think that there is no stigma to not fix when you break other people stuff ?

1

ziq wrote

As a "bad guy", I'm telling you right now I'm just gonna kill you to save me the trouble of having to negotiate.

2

manc wrote

YOU JUST VIOLATED THE NAP!

3

ziq wrote

I'm so excited for the ancap revolution so I can start ganking capitalists and not get locked up because there's no state to protect their asses.

5

manc wrote

I'm so excited for the ancap revolution so I can start ganking capitalists and not get locked up because there's no state to protect their asses

/u/Silver_ THIS PERSON IS NOT HONORING THE CONTRACT AND MUST BE SHAMED IMMEDIATELY DO NOT BUY GOODS AND OR SERVICES FROM ZIQ

4

Silver_ OP wrote

Yeah, but don't be surprised when vigilantes want revenge & kill you.

Note: How will justice work in an ancom system : can you explain me, please ?

0

ziq wrote

In my system: you try to exploit me for my labor, I kill you. You lay claim to more land than you can work yourself and thus exoloit others to work it for you, I kill you.

3

Silver_ OP wrote (edited )

You lay claim to more land than you can work yourself and thus exoloit others to work it for you

Ok, so If I pay my brother to work my land for me, you will kill me ?

If I pay my son to work my land for me, you will kill me ?

If I pay a stranger, will you kill me ?

Even If It doesn't bother you at all and the other party was willing ?

0

ziq wrote

Yes.

3

Silver_ OP wrote

Are they better off, If they do it for free or for 0.01$/hour ?

Do you think that you improve the life of this family by killing me ?

1

ziq wrote

  1. No one is going to labor for you for free.

  2. Yes.

5

Silver_ OP wrote

Ok, does It mean that you will stop using anything that you haven't built yourself (because It is theft & immoral//You have more efficient/better alternatives) ?

1

ziq wrote

A better alternative than you exploiting me to build things for you to profit from? Yes. Kill you and take the stuff you got by exploiting me.

4

Silver_ OP wrote

Might as well call your ideology solipsism/"egoism" and become a raider/gang member.

take the stuff you got by exploiting me.

I haven't exploited you.

1

ziq wrote

You exploited me the moment you violently hoarded land and resources and entered people into servitude to work it for you and defend it for you by denying them food, water and shelter unless they did your bidding. You are a state.

4

Silver_ OP wrote

I never did this

1

ziq wrote

Actually it's voluntary servitude because I let you eat dinner in exchange for doing backbreaking labor to make the very food I let you eat.. after taking 99% of it for myself.

Yeah.. Like all states you engage in doublespeak to avoid responsibility for your exploitation.

5

Silver_ OP wrote

Ah I see, maybe you have a problem with bad deals, then ?

You want to outlaw bad deals, right ?

What If the deal was good for some people ? What If people are happy with the deal ?

Or do you think that value is objective and you are the one who gets to decide what is a good or bad deal ?

−1

ziq wrote

No I don't want to outlaw bad deals. I don't want to make any deals. I just want to kill you and burn down everything your slaves built for you.

5

Silver_ OP wrote

Are you rioting all the time & looting in protests or smth

You don't want peace ? What do you want me to do ? What should I do, kill myself ?

0

ziq wrote

Stop exploiting people for their labor. Stop hoarding more resources than you need when others have none. Stop branding people "bad" for taking what they need to survive from you when you took everything you have from them and people like them. Stop creating authority. Stop reproducing statism. Stop ruling people and land and constructing top-down systems where everyone is exploited by everyone above them.

6

rot wrote

You think that some people (companies)

well 1st of all companies aren't people..

If some people break your front door steal some food & run away, they will have to compensate you (sooner or later), regardless of their circumstances.

explain. How?

6

Silver_ OP wrote (edited )

We simply ask the bad guy If he is willing to compensate. If he do, we'll negociate. If he doesn't want to come in (private) "court" (discussing with me), I will say it to the "public" & he will be shamed from the community

Pretty risky for him, because he risks :

Ostracism, loss of honor & unfortunately maybe some people will be willing to be vigilantes to have a "revenge"

Edit: Companies aren't people, but their property belong to people

1

rot wrote

so how is this different from 'anarchocapitalism' or mutualism?

2

heckthepolice2 wrote

It's different from mutualism in that mutualism rejects capitalilst property norms in favor of possession-by-use. Pretty much the private property vs. personal property distinction.

It's different from """anarcho"""-capitalism in precisely zero ways

5

rot wrote

op didn't do a very good job of defining voluntarism.

4

SomeIconoclast wrote

how is this different from 'anarchocapitalism'

It's spelled differently.

That's it.

That's literally the only difference.

5

ziq wrote

Yeah way easier just to kill you than deal with losing my precious honor.

1

Silver_ OP wrote

Yeah, but don't be surprised when vigilantes kill you then

2

ziq wrote

You're basically describing Bonanza. You hoard all the land and everyone works for you except drifters and Indians who get shot for tresspassing unless they shoot you first whereupon a posse is assembled to shoot them.

Fun.

4

heckthepolice2 wrote

with regards to premise 2, if we eliminate all propety claimed through "forcible" or "involuntary" means then we end up eliminating all capitalist property and basically creating something resembling Proudhon's mutualism, if not outright communism. Capitalism is violent by its nature and it was established through the violent process of primitive accumulation (which took forms like colonialism, enclosure of the commons, etc.)

5

celebratedrecluse wrote

You should look up the marxist term, "primitive accumulation"

this will explain why you can't have voluntary approaches to the issue of inequality. There has already been a very long history of accumulation by force, so engaging in pacifism or voluntaryism isn't really going to contest the fundamental inequalities between the Global North and Global South, nor even the smaller divides between the rich and poor withing the Global North.

Voluntaryism lends itself towards neoliberalism creeping back into radical projects, as does pacifism. Why? Because the ideology, at least how many apply it in practice, basically ignores the fact that the dominant society is constantly, and has for a very long time, stealing everything it possibly can: from indigenous people, from workers, from POC, from queer & trans people, from the earth itself, etc.

You can't change that if you don't acknowledge that this is constantly occurring, and find some way to make reparations. And it goes without saying, you can't have consent/peace with a system which is actively abusing people and the environment-- you can only have abuse, or the end of that abuse. Consent and peace are things that happen between mutually respecting, autonomous parties-- not between people who are abusing others, and people are abused by them. And that's what privilege is: abuse.

So it's going to come down to fighting: taking back land and labor and energy and time, and decolonizing it from property rights, from empire, from industrial exploitation, from the police, from bureaucrats, etc. And that's where voluntaryism, for all its redeeming features, totally falls short.

Voluntaryists in many cases become laissez faire capitalists over time, because they haven't let go of the myth that the creation of an anarchist society merely requires us to create internally consistent standards of social interaction. In reality, it is the externalization of costs which upholds the dominant society, and no amount of rearranging the deck chairs is going to change that. We have to, instead, make a choice.

Do you accept this system of privilege as it is, and let the trajectory of capitalism play out until we are all dead? Or do you fight back, by disrespecting the social norms of "peace/consent" insofar as privilege is concerned? That's the only important question, as far as this "Voluntaryist" or "Pacifist" stuff is concerned.

5

Silver_ OP wrote

issue of inequality

Inequality isn't an issue, poverty is.

accumulation by force

If you think that a specific property (a plot of land for example) was stolen thousands years ago, you can still contact the "new owners" and claim it/negociate . They probably aren't aware of it & who knows, maybe they'll give it back to you for free !

So it's going to come down to fighting: taking back land and labor and energy and time, and decolonizing it from property rights, from empire, from industrial exploitation, from the police, from bureaucrats, etc. And that's where voluntaryism, for all its redeeming features, totally falls short.

I couldn't care less If you "steal" "public" property. However, I think that you should judge individuals and avoid judging groups.

I mean I find it dumb to attack people who did nothing wrong or attack them because of some land theft that happened 1000 years ago that they are not even aware of. Tell 'em first, If they don't want, then you can think about what to do...

to create internally consistent standards of social interaction.

I agree, that's why I think that violence (in other cases than direct self-defense, should be avoided as much possible).

Do you accept this system of privilege as it is, and let the trajectory of capitalism play out until we are all dead? Or do you fight back, by disrespecting the social norms of "peace/consent" insofar as privilege is concerned? That's the only important question, as far as this "Voluntaryist" or "Pacifist" stuff is concerned.

Well, the state is mainly responsible for most of this bullscrap, but even If they weren't I can't care less If someone is driving a lamborghini or a car made out of diamonds at the other side of the globe, I just think that poverty is a problem, but stealing his car **isn't the only way to solve this AND ISN'T a VICTIMLESS act"

That's the same as saying that a prostitute shouldn't have the right to deny you sex, If you don't pay, cuz you weren't able to have sex for years... Sex is a basic human right !

Oh, but It is their bodies, not material stuff, so It's different ! But Is it really ... ?

If a hundred+ of workers work (in a co-op) for building an apartment, then leave it for 1-2 months, then a group of squatters come & trash the place Is it really fair for the squatters ? Is it really fair that all these physical efforts are going to waste ?

−3

heckthepolice2 wrote

Funny how you never responded to the part about primitive accumulation. Almost like you only have one pre-made response that you use for every question/criticism and you couldn't figure out how to make it fit...

3

Silver_ OP wrote

Yes, some bad things happened in the past (war, colonialism...etc) and then ?

Doesn't mean that we should become savage animals.

If you think that you have a solid/legitimate claim to a specific part of land/property, then claim & see If the owner gives it to you or not. Now, we'll be able to think about taking some kind of action

0

heckthepolice2 wrote

What I'm saying is not "some bad things happened in the past" (understatement of the fucking millenium)

What I'm saying is that those "bad things" are what created capitalism. Voluntaryism completely breaks down once you start to consider how property got acquired in the first place, because if you go back far enought sooner or later you're going to find force and violence.

If you think that you have a solid/legitimate claim to a specific part of land/property, then claim & see If the owner gives it to you or not

"Indigenous people should just politely ask settler-colonialists to give their land back & depeasantized proletarians should just politely ask capitalists to reinstate the commons" lmao

If you went to the effort of taking land by force, why would you give it back just because someone asked you.

Oh wait let me guess

"Ostracism, loss of honor, and vigilantes"

You really don't understand how self-interest works, do you?

4

Silver_ OP wrote

No, no It's better to not ask 'em of course & attack them, even If they are not aware of what's going on.

Exactly, like the state is doing, attacking you just because you are born in some geographical area (wars!)...

So, do you think that the right way to resolve conflicts is through war (war is expensive, btw) ? Like in the Israel/palestine conflict ? Do you think that It is the most efficient method ?

If you went to the effort of taking land by force, why would you give it back just because someone asked you.

I never said that you should ask the robbers when the theft occured one week ago, I just said that you should claim, when a land was stolen thousand of years ago (the "thieves" aren't even aware of what's going on)

You really don't understand how self-interest works, do you?

Yeah, maybe you're right and death isn't a good enough deterrent, no one cares about their own life...

Oh and I forgot something, what happens in your anarchist society, when people don't respect the rules/aggress people ?

0

celebratedrecluse wrote

Oh, but It is their bodies, not material stuff, so It's different ! But Is it really ... ?

lambos are literally sex workers

1

[deleted] wrote

3

Silver_ OP wrote (edited )

  1. Nothing wrong with hating wage labour. Don't like it, don't do it.

  2. Nothing wrong with wanting to work a certain way (co-ops for example)

  3. “Wealth is power, poverty is weakness,”

I don't see how. It surprises me that I hear this coming from someone who is not a capitalist. I thought that capitalists were the materialist ones.

1

Majrelende wrote

Voluntaryism (UK: /ˈvɒləntəriɪzəm/,[1] US: /-tɛr-/;[1] sometimes voluntarism[2] /ˈvɒləntərɪzəm/)[3] is a philosophy that holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary, a term coined in this usage by Auberon Herbert in the 19th century, and gaining renewed use since the late 20th century, especially among libertarians.

from Wikipedia

Nothing, if you use this definition, but there is more to it than just that.

People don't want to be killed, especially when they did nothing wrong. People also don't want to be hurt, especially when they did nothing wrong.

Exactly.

Therefore violence should be minimized as much as possible.

There is nothing wrong with this.

If you are in a desert have a bottle of water & a mugger attacks you & steal the water, they will have to compensate you (sooner or later), regardless of their circumstances.

This is a difficult situation. We both need water, and there is very little of it, but this “bad guy” wants to survive as much as I do. Context matters, though. I will give two examples:

  • I am a tourist who will not be in the desert for long. At worst, I will suffer minor dehydration, but this person obviously faced much worse if they had to steal it.
  • I am going on a long journey through the desert, and I need water. When it is stolen, I need to be flown out or rescued in some way, maybe even to a hospital. That would be frightening and a bit of a disappointment, but at least my water went to good use.

If some people break your front door steal some food & run away, they will have to compensate you (sooner or later), regardless of their circumstances.

Why? If I had more food than I needed, why should I want any compensation?

It would be a shame about the door, though, but it is already gone; why should I ask for compensation?

You think that some people (companies) have illegitimate property claims, because It was financed with stolen money/items/scams...etc .

“Stolen” in a socialist sense means something different from the conventional capitalist version of the word. To steal can include to steal part of something but not all of it, as with wage labour.

However, this is not to be confused with forced labour, which a requirement for labour theft— if it were voluntary, it would not be theft. Forced labour, through a copious amount of doublespeak, can be considered “voluntary”— as it is, a poorly defined word and thus subject to manipulation— if you consider that no one is physically hurting you or detaining you for not working. However, when you consider the fact that not working for money in a market economy will result in deprivation of food and shelter and maybe even water, it starts to sound much less voluntary.

This is the problem with voluntaryism: people often take advantage of the poorly defined word “voluntary” to justify that which is not, in reality, voluntary.

2

Silver_ OP wrote (edited )

I am going on a long journey through the desert, and I need water. When it is stolen, I need to be flown out or rescued in some way, maybe even to a hospital. That would be frightening and a bit of a disappointment, but at least my water went to good use.

Ok, If you die because of him (especially If he didn't even need the water, but he just wanted to sell it), what do you think ? Is it just, Is it fair ?

Why? If I had more food than I needed, why should I want any compensation?

It would be a shame about the door, though, but it is already gone; why should I ask for compensation?

6 things :

What If you need it ?

What is your opinion on armed robbery ?

You are parking your car, you come back, It isn't there anymore, Is it good, Is it legit ?

How is your system really different than today !?

Do you think that It is ok to steal from people who have "met their very basic needs" ? For example, is it ok for me to steal your phone/computer ?

Edit: Oh I forgot, If you're working on something (whether you're building a house) or you're driving or anything else. Can I just come & smash your computer screen, smartphone, vandalize your car, vandalize your house or do anything like this, without compensating you/without consequences ? Is it good behavior ?

However, when you consider the fact that not working for money in a market economy will result in deprivation of food and shelter and maybe even water, it starts to sound much less voluntary.

3 things :

First of all, even If It were true It would still be voluntary

Secondly, You didn't inherit anything from your parents ?

Thirdly, even when starting from scratch with 0 resource you're not forced to do wage labour/jobs (freelancing, helping people in rural areas in exchange of stuff, co-ops...etc are ok alternatives).

0

Majrelende wrote

Ok, If you die because of him (especially If he didn't even need the water, but he just wanted to sell it), what do you think? Is it just, Is it fair?

Of course it is not fair, but how can a dead person be compensated? And in a truly voluntaryist society, people would not have to sell. Note “have to”. And how much money would someone even get for selling another person’s water?

What if you need it?

If there is not enough food, it is the flaw of the agricultural system, common knowledge, or the ecosystem in general, not that particular person. Shall I take out my foraging books and write a list of vegan edible wild plants for you?

Do not jump to conclusions and suppose that the evitable is inevitable.

What is your opinion on armed robbery?

Where did you get this from? I never said I thought armed robbery was fine. I am just saying that I think compensation is silly in a genuinely voluntary society.

You are parking your car, you come back, It isn't there anymore, Is it good, Is it legit?

If they are escaping violence or starvation or some similarly horrifying situation, yes. Otherwise, probably not, unless they are going to bring it back. But why do I need compensation?

How is your system really different than today!?

I am genuinely confused by now, but I will try to answer.

To put it simply...

In an anarchist system, all interactions are ideally voluntary in the strictest sense. This means that people are not forced to do anything unless motivated by the direct product of their labour or their own heart— for example, digging up carrots when you are hungry or giving some to a friend.

Under statist capitalism, a tiny minority controls the great majority and manipulates them both by force and by propaganda. People are deprived of the means of production, owned by the bourgeoisie, the ruling class, and to a lesser extent, the petite bourgeoisie, while the working class is forced into servitude in order to gain money and therefore access to what they need to live, all of which comes from the means of production.

Do you think that It is ok to steal from people who have "met their very basic needs" ? For example, is it ok for me to steal your phone/computer?

No. But “not ok” is not the same as “requiring punishment”. It is not okay to stand by and do nothing when people are starving and you can do something about it, but that does not mean they should be punished for it, at least in my opinion. It only makes them want to help even less.

Edit: Oh I forgot, If you're working on something (whether you're building a house) or you're driving or anything else. Can I just come & smash your computer screen, smartphone, vandalize your car, vandalize your house or do anything like this, without compensating you/without consequences ? Is it good behavior ?

consequencespunishment

Why would you do this? If the project hurt you, I would certainly stop or at least find the part that is hurting you and even give you an opportunity to help in minimising harm.

If you were doing it for fun, though, asking for compensation would be a good way to make you feel victimised. Instead, I would find you and tell you why I was doing whatever I was doing so that I could make you feel horrible about what you did, thereby stopping any further harm.

First of all, even If It were true It would still be voluntary

Yes, because everyone owns their own house and infrastructure, obviously.

Consider this statement:

Pay us or we will throw you out of your home and leave you on the streets.

————

Now that you have spent ample time considering, let me tell you that I have gone to numerous cities, and in most of them, I have seen homeless people sleeping on the sidewalks and hungry people begging for money just so they can avoid starvation. I am not saying they are all unemployed, but this is what a lack of money does to people in a market society.

Secondly, You didn't inherit anything from your parents ?

They are not dead yet, but what does this have to do with anything?

Thirdly, even when starting from scratch with 0 resource you're not forced to do wage labour/jobs (freelancing, helping people in rural areas in exchange of stuff, co-ops...etc are ok alternatives).

Never did I say otherwise. However, you must not have read my answer. Forced labour is a prerequisite for labour theft, or wage labour, not the same thing.

(Is it worth continuing this conversation?)

3

Silver_ OP wrote

Do not jump to conclusions and suppose that the evitable is inevitable.

If It can be "inevitable" for one person (the thief), It can also be "inevitable" for the victim.

Never said, that It was inevitable, with perfect decision making, though

Where did you get this from? I never said I thought armed robbery was fine. I am just saying that I think compensation is silly in a genuinely voluntary society.

Then, don't compensate. I hope that you will only avoid compensating in ancom communes, though.

If they are escaping violence or starvation or some similarly horrifying situation, yes. Otherwise, probably not, unless they are going to bring it back. But why do I need compensation?

You are not forced to claim, that's right.

But If other people want to claim some compensation, that's their right, too. Do you agree ? Nothing wrong with asking people things, right ?

I am not saying they are all unemployed, but this is what a lack of money does to people in a market society.

Lolz, they can work in rural areas for farmers/other people or make money with the public library computers.

Pay us or we will throw you out of your home and leave you on the streets.

First of all, you don't own the house, If It's true. Secondly, then leave & go elsewhere. Find a cheaper place to live.

They are not dead yet, but what does this have to do with anything?

I mean, they haven't given you something ? Your parents didn't give you land ? Money, nothing ? No resources to be self-sufficient ?

1